Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 189
  1. #21
    Grandmaster Kutnupe14's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    So, if you order dinner at a restaurant, you don't have a contractual interest in consuming that meal at the restaurant?

    How is ordering a coffee drink at Starbucks and sitting down at a table materially any different?
    No. Look at it this way, would the price of your meal be the same if you ordered carry out?
    I Have the Worst Crew Ever

  2. #22
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    I don't like that idea at all. We can't condone officers being JBTs when we don't like the bad, legal, behavior of others. The officers conducted themselves exactly as professionals should.
    Allow me my mental schadenfreude. I know the officers in question would never do such a thing.

    I don't believe that it is established that legal (or, at least, legally compelling) behavior of others is involved here. For the sake of argument, the barista violated the officers' right of accommodation to consume their coffee drinks purchased on the premises. For the sake of further argument, the "offended" customer committed tortious interference of the officers' contractual interest with the establishment.

    Of course, I've reached the point of no more tolerance for these fascist *******s.

  3. #23
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    No. Look at it this way, would the price of your meal be the same if you ordered carry out?
    Yes, actually, because I wouldn't be paying a tip for the server. Also, there are (or at least, used to be) restaurants that charged different prices for dining in vs carrying out.

  4. #24
    Grandmaster Kutnupe14's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    Is there case law on this question? Again, I argue that providing tables and chairs intended to be used to consume products purchased on the premises constitutes the same contractual interest as eating at any other restaurant.

    We are long-past the time when any proprietor could ask any patron to leave for any reason whatsoever. "Right of accommodation", and all.
    Not that I'm aware, so I won't say I'm 100% right, but businesses usually have wide leeway in refusing service if you aren't a member of a protected group.
    I Have the Worst Crew Ever

  5. #25
    Expert Clay Pigeon's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    Not that I'm aware, so I won't say I'm 100% right, but businesses usually have wide leeway in refusing service if you aren't a member of a protected group.

    So, you are saying LEO are not a protected group?
    "Too much agreement kills a chat." ~Eldridge Cleaver

  6. #26
    Grandmaster Kutnupe14's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Clay Pigeon View Post
    So, you are saying LEO are not a protected group?
    No, they're not, at not from a civil rights perspective.
    I Have the Worst Crew Ever

  7. #27
    Grandmaster Fargo's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    Is there case law on this question? Again, I argue that providing tables and chairs intended to be used to consume products purchased on the premises constitutes the same contractual interest as eating at any other restaurant.

    We are long-past the time when any proprietor could ask any patron to leave for any reason whatsoever. "Right of accommodation", and all.
    Yeah, the closest I know of supports Kut's argument.

    https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinion...06291201bd.pdf

    If you find Ct. Of Appeals decision overruled in the above, it largely adopted Chip's argument. I think the INSCt. got it wrong, but it is what it is.

  8. #28
    Expert Clay Pigeon's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    No, they're not, at not from a civil rights perspective.
    Joe Citizen doesn't have Qualified immunity, LEO do.
    "Too much agreement kills a chat." ~Eldridge Cleaver

  9. #29
    tsm
    tsm is offline
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    No, they're not, at not from a civil rights perspective.
    How do you know some of them weren’t?

  10. #30
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Fargo View Post
    Yeah, the closest I know of supports Kut's argument.

    https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinion...06291201bd.pdf

    If you find Ct. Of Appeals decision overruled in the above, it largely adopted Chip's argument. I think the INSCt. got it wrong, but it is what it is.
    So, the cited case is an irate bank customer who demanded services not provided by the bank, by policy. I don't see how that has any bearing on someone who purchases product for consumption from a restaurant.

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge